How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Helping Donald Trump

The liberal justice attacks the presumptive GOP nominee.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not like the idea of Donald Trump becoming president and she wants the world to know it. Speaking recently to The New York Times, Ginsburg said she "can't imagine" the horrors that would be unleashed by a Trump presidency and joked about moving "to New Zealand" if Trump wins. In response, Trump told the Times that Ginsburg's comments were "a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court."

Ginsburg took a different approach. In yet another interview, this time with CNN, the liberal justice blasted Trump as "a faker" who "has no consistency about him…. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?" Unsurprisingly, Trump also responded to that, this time via Twitter: "Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot—resign!"

If Justice Ginsburg really wants to see Donald Trump lose the 2016 presidential election then she should keep her political opinions to herself. After all, there is practically no chance that Ginsburg—the Supreme Court's most predictably liberal justice—is going to persuade any wavering conservatives that they ought to ditch Trump. However, there is every chance that Ginsburg's anti-Trump outbursts will backfire by reminding all conservatives—including plenty of wavering #NeverTrump-ers—that the election of Hillary Clinton will guarantee the nomination of more Ginsburg-style liberals to SCOTUS.

Unfortunately for Ginsburg, Trump is apparently wise enough to understand what Ginsburg does not. As Trump told the Times, Ginsburg "only energizes my base even more."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

What about the partisan hackery of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Alito and Scalia? Scalia famously refused to recuse himself from cases involving Vice President Cheney .,.. who Scalia had gone on a fishing trip with. All this reported today by those crazy liberals at the Wall Street Journal. Thereby showing, once again, that the charge of “partisan hack” comes mostly for partisan hacks in the opposing tribe.

I agree but her goal is to get Trump elected. Commies and fascists need each other to play off of and thereby create their police state / Secular Caliphate which they can then use to abuse and exploit vulnerable people. This is nothing new – they’ve been doing it for over a century. Fortunately it will fail. Some of us actually learned from history for once.

The socialists stoked resentments with too-generous social services and the Nazis exploit that to scapegoat a vulnerable minority. Then the communists call you ‘crazy’ for pointing it out. It’s an old strategy. But hey, feel free to continue demonstrating how it works, and why it can’t work any more:

Of course they were socialists. Nazi = “National Socialist”. It was them vs the Social Democrats. This is well known. You think you can win an argument by calling people “loon”? How delightfully communist of you. How are those Gulag plans coming along?

Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that’s OK. There’s a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn’t require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

Some folks get downright nasty when called out. What do you say about the partisan involvement of Justices O’Connor, Alito and Scalia? Should Alito have accused Obama of an untruth? Should Scalia have recused himself from cases involving Vice President Cheney … because the two had gone on a fishing trip together?

Do you frequently use “gulags” while attacking the right of Free Speech? But hey, feel free to continue showing how to deny Constitutional rights to anyone you disagree with, and why it can’t work under our Constitution.

You’re probably right about that. I forgot which radio commenter lately’s been saying the BLM protests will stop once they realize they’re driving Trump’s polls up, but he’s wrong. These people don’t want to win, they just want to keep the game going.

The democratic world’s divided between the people who want to get shit done?of course half of them want to undo whatever the other half wants, the division being particular to the issue?& the professionals who play to them, who’ll lose power, $, & att’n if the shit ever gets done. I left LP partly because I saw they’d gotten that way, which I guess is inevitable in political parties; they were offended by Howard Stern because they resented someone’s being able to make something of the work they’d done & recognition they thought they deserved. In recent yrs. I’ve started to conclude that Reason, run by a not-for-profit but paying salaries, is also in the “professional” category that stands to lose by winning, even if the stakes be perceived just as cocktail party invit’ns.

Hitlary will kill him in the debates. He knows it and will try every strategy to get out of them. He thought that by now his goons would have intimidated everyone into compliance. Huge miscalculation. He is losing steam fast, despite your poll claims. He will choose Gingrich and they will together grow increasingly desperate and delusional. They will be a complete joke. Will be great fun to watch.

Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

Depends on the drug. Also consider that heavy & extended use may be preceded by brain damage. Like that cartoon Jacob dug up with T. Edison probing a tobacco-smoking child for voltage, & observing, “Not a live wire.” I don’t think the point was what Jacob thought it was, i.e. that smoking causes dementia, but rather that you gotta be somewhat dim to smoke.

According the “normal rules” of debates, I think she absolutely will. She’ll seem more statesman like, more even keeled, more knowledgeable. The real question is, how many people will be judging each candidate according to the typical rules of debate?

She’ll seem more statesman like, more even keeled, more knowledgeable.

I would not be so sure. “What difference, at this point, does it make?!” was pretty unstatesmanlike. If Trump can get under her skin as well as that Congressman did, then she won’t have the advantage of appearing even keeled except to her die-hard supporters.

Not only that. Trump will do the same thing to Hillary that he did to all of his GOP rivals. He’ll somehow make her look stupid. It’s impossible to debate this guy using the typical rules and he’s totally untouchable by the media. It’s like trying to debate Joe Biden and win. It can’t be done. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of either, it’s all about the rope a dope mocking of your opponent.

Not only that. Trump will do the same thing to Hillary that he did to all of his GOP rivals

He got less than 40% of the GOP voters when it was still contested … the same percentage of Republicans who believe Obama is a Muslim from Kenya. Against a non-felon that means less than 20% in the general election.

Funny. I also had a political dream last night. I dreamed that I voted for Johnson. It was weird. The options on the ballot were: Trump, Johnson, Deez Nuts, and a write-in option. And when I handed in my vote, the lady started screaming at me for not voting for Hillary.

Hyperion’s Post Brexit Moment I dreamed last night that Shillary had a big drop in the polls. Woke up this morning and it was true.

Meanwhile, outside your bipolar world, disgust with both Hilary and Trump have driven Obama’s approval ratings to positive … for the first time since his re-election. Thanks for nothing.

And in the known universe, “Shillary’s” drop is caused by her emails. Trump’s negatives are still higher, still by a majority of Americans., It’s like two submarines fighting to crash first on the ocean floor. As the shrinking minority of partisan Ds and Rs think that crashing last is a victory.

It seems like my morning news has a regular segment at 8:01 every day listing the previous day’s celebrity and political noisemakers trying to outdo each other with the signalling. This morning I learned that Hillary is our only hope to stop cops from killing black people.

I just wish people would talk about how cops just kill people. Making it a black vs white thing is only going to serve to put people into opposing camps regardless of reason and evidence. Not to mention the simple fact that it’s not a black vs white thing in the first place.

The whole racial angle is just demented. As though somehow there’s a secret Confederate Revanchist cabal that somehow managed to take over the police departments in cities that are majority black and have mostly black leaders. And not, you know, politicians politicking and taking the path of least resistance and maximal corruption to delivering what the voters claim to want.

There seem to be two types of old people – those who wear the glasses that were popular when they were young, which look ridiculous now, and those that wear modern hipster-inspired glasses, which look ridiculous on anyone over 35. Can’t we find some happy middle ground?

However, there is every chance that Ginsburg’s anti-Trump outbursts will backfire by reminding all conservatives?including plenty of wavering #NeverTrump-ers?that the election of Hillary Clinton will guarantee the nomination of more Ginsburg-style liberals to SCOTUS.

So you’re saying that scores of seemingly Hispanics violently protesting Trump events is not the best way to get their point across to voters?

I can’t imagine a rally of Mexican flag waving Hispanics attacking Trump supporters and pelting them with eggs is going to do much to disprove the claims Trump has made regarding that particular subset of immigrants.

I originally had seeming there and changed it for some reason. Anyway, I am going to start to suspect soon that all these hyper-partisan and un-self-aware antics of people like the protesters and the Ginsburglar are all some kind of subversive campaign push of secret Trumpeters.

But I will admit I have a hard time working up much outrage given she’s going after Trump. He says things that piss people off and they [gasp] they get pissed off. That’s the pathetic aspect of running a troll for President, the thin-skinnedness.

It’s no different than Hihn coming here, insulting us regularly and then crying that we are bullies when we strike back at him.

You know, maybe his hatred for us “anti-government extremists” stems from him witnessing the assassination of William McKinley at the hands of a self-professed anarchist? We’re just unpleasant reminders of his youth.

You know, maybe his hatred for us “anti-government extremists” stems from him witnessing the assassination of William McKinley at the hands of a self-professed anarchist? We’re just unpleasant reminders of his youth

(yawn) more aggression.

It’s not hatred. It’s a calm statement that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians. Per Cato, not me, but line up to shoot the messenger.

Birthers also suffer severe denial, And the authoritarian mind ALWAYS deals in aggression. And always justifies it, The True Believers.

Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.” -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

Throughout human history, the worst abuses have been committed by those who believe they are defending some “greater good” — the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.

Technically, the Ron Paul cult is not a “mass movement.” Just anti-constitutional authoritarians who think they are.

Oh, it gets better – the movie is about how Ginsburg took on male client in a case of the government discriminating against men.

Ah, but the private sector is different, *there,* at least, you can practice sex discrimination, according to libertarian jurists like Ginsburg!

I mean, that’s the explanation for why she approves choosing a movie director based on sex, right? Because it’s in the private sector and she’s cool with that as a libertarian, so long as government discrimination isn’t involved.

Now I really really want Trump to win. Imagine a court were Ruth Ginsburg has to recuse herself from every case dealing with the administration. That kind of slap down of blatant politicking on the court would leave scars that would last generations of democrats. It would do ten times the good as sending Hillary to jail would.

And that will give the republican congress and excuse to impeach her on ethical grounds. Trump would have no problem leading the charge and giving the congress critters cover to hide behind his outsized media presence. No danger to them because no one is going to remember them while Trump is speaking.

WTF She will never recuse herself regardless of the impropriety. She is just that vile

How about when Scalia refused to recuse himself from several cases involving Vice President Cheney …. despite the two of them taking a fishing trip together, As reported by those fucking liberals at the Wall Street Journal? Care to comment? Or shall we assume you’re just another mind-controlled puppet of the political class?

Imagine a world where Nukular Newt is VP and has decided that his personal mission as VP is to ramp up the drug war 1000x and start executing pot heads. Not that Hillary wouldn’t do the same, it’s just difficult for me to wish Trump wins since we’re still going to get a shitload of new statist bullshit anyway.

re Ruth Ginsburg has to recuse herself from every case dealing with the administration

How about when Scalia refused to recuse himself from several cases involving Vice President Cheney …. despite the two of them taking a fishing trip together, As reported by those fucking liberals at the Wall Street Journal? Care to comment?

But their opponents’ “warmongering” is mean-spirited and will inevitably lead to bad things, while their warmongering is noble in intent and always improves the world. You know it’s true, cause they tell you!

“There is every chance that Ginsburg’s anti-Trump outbursts will backfire by reminding all conservatives?including plenty of wavering #NeverTrump-ers?that the election of Hillary Clinton will guarantee the nomination of more Ginsburg-style liberals to SCOTUS.”

Trump didn’t win the nomination despite being called a racist by the Democrat establishment for opposing Muslim immigration and promising to do something about immigration from Mexico.

Trump won the nomination because he was called a racist by the Democrat establishment for opposing Muslim immigration and promising to do something about immigration from Mexico.

The only thing I’d add to Damon Root’s observation there is that it isn’t just conservatives that rally behind Trump in the face of elitism. White, middle class, blue collar workers used to be the bread and butter of the Democratic Party. Those people are hypersensitive to elitism, and polls suggest that Trump did better in states with open primaries–where registered Democrats could vote for him, too.

If progressives like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the Democratic Party establishment, and their cronies in the media manage to turn this election into a referendum on elitism, Trump may win the swing states.

I wonder if SCOTUS nominees have to reveal their tax returns? Would be interesting to see the sources of income (dividends from major corporations, etc.) that might lead to recusal on many cases coming before them.

I remember how big a fit the left threw when one of the judges shook his head at a state of the union address while Obama attacked the court. I thought that was clearly overkill, but in this kind of situation I think that Ginsburg should have stayed silent, unlike her alt-text.

Politically stupid, but totally within her rights, The Wall Street Journal reports political involvement by Justice O’Connor, Justice Alito’s takedown of Obama, and Justice Scalia’s refusal to recuse himself from multiple cases involving Vice President Cheney who Scalia had gone on a fishing trip with.

In the late 90s, Washington State Justice Richard Sanders was seen as America’s highest-ranking elected libertarian. My favorite opinion was his rejection of state term limits. His opinion traced all the reasons term limits would be good, but he could find nothing in the state constitution to allow term limits. KAPOW for strict interpretation! He was endorsed for re-election by the Seattle Times acknowledging him as the conscience of the court. Every Supreme Court should have a Justice Sanders, they said. But only one.

As State Director of the LP, I invited him to address our convention. Attendance was so high that most of the audience had to stand. He addressed all three conventions that year.

When he was formally censured for addressing a pro-life group in Seattle, and never one for tribal bullshit, he sought the help from those best able to defend his right of free speech. The ACLU. So the ACLU defended the Free Speech rights of pro-life supporters. And won.